Step Up Transformers….Are they Worth the Trouble?

@rauliruegas

I appreciate the recommendation for Integrated but I am not looking to upgrade my Integrated. Accuphase Integrated is not going anywhere! On my last shootout with T+A and Dartzeel, I preferred the synergy between the Accuphase and Tannoy’s.

To suggest the use of a Off Board SUT / Head Amp' is a detriment to a produced end sound, as a result of the usage extending the routing for a Signal Path, along with being dependent on adding other parts to enable the function, does require a little extra analysis to fully understand the full extent of where the real world concerns can be found.

In the case of a SUT, for the entirety of a design to be enabled to function, will incorporate a Transformer. The Transformer will introduce a increased Length of a Wire in the Signal Path, as well as the likelihood Different Wire Types are used in required Umbilical Cables and Different Metals for Connectors are being used on Cables and at the Input / Output on the device.

In the case of the Head Amp' for the entirety of a design to enable function, will incorporate an increased number of components in the Signal Path, as well as the likelihood Different Wires Types are used in required Umbilical Cables  and Different Connectors metals for Connectors are being used on Cables and at the Input / Output on the device. 

I propose one other consideration not too often seen being put on the table for discussion, is the end users unique choice for the Topology of the added devices, such as the Placement in relation to the Tonearm > Phon' and the Lengths of Umbilical Cables adopted ? Certainly worthwhile learning more and optimising.

Additionally there are other materials selected for use in the Signal Path, which are to be found used at critical interfaces along the Signal Path, i.e, Cart' Lead Out Pin's being Brass, Copper or another metal - Tag Wire Type? - Tag Wire Connectors being Brass, Copper or another metal - Connectors at the Tonearm Wire Interface being Brass, Copper or another metal - Tonearm Wire Type? - Connectors used within a Tonearm at another Interface being Brass, Copper or another metal - Connectors on Tonearm Phono Cable at either end being Brass, Copper or another metal.

Alternatively a selected Wire used as a continuous Wire, which is run from Cart' Lead Out Pins to Phono Connectors at the wires opposite end, which leaves the question about the Wire Connectors at either end being Brass, Copper or another metal.

Not creating a route for the Signal Path that is to its absolute benefit, is one that through experiences had and assessments made, one which is compromised and will diminish the end sound in achieving its full potential. Making changes to this Signal Path will create a perception that a less diminished end sound is being structured.  

On certain Phons', mainly with a MC Input, a version of either of the above descriptions are most likely to be found incorporated within the Phon' as a design for the Phon's Circuit and will be given a specific Topology.

When using Outboard/Standalone Devices for the purpose of Amplifying a Signal,  strongly suggests the fundamental affect on what can be classed as being able to diminish the end sound ,is the Input / Output Connectors and the Output Cable. y.

When considering what is very commonly encountered as the Signal Path between a Cart's produced electrical signal to the first stage of Signal Amplification.

The notion that a few additional connectors and a Cable Length used on an Off Board Amplification Device is a real cause for concern does seem to be a little OTT. 

Removal of the Upstream Logs seems to be much better a place to focus on to improve the flow, rather than a few branches further down the stream.

It is each to their own, in relation to how they address the Signal Path.

As for myself, In relation to the Signal Path. I go to Pure Copper frequently, Pure Silver infrequently, avoid Brass unless no choice but to have it. Also reducing connections has been the choice in relation to Cart' > Phon' for quite few years. 

In relation to the 333 Integrated, the design is seemingly showing the fundamental is to have a very short Signal Path, the design selected being the anti-thesis of a Separates System.

Is the introduction to this Amp' coming from the notion, all Systems made up from  Separate Devices and connected with Umbilical Cables are no longer necessary ?

Or is the notion behind introducing the 333, that to use a SUT / Head Amp can be bettered by adopting this type of Amp' Design? 

As for my interpretation of the 333 in relation to it being a concept with a Scandinavian Philosophy, as well as being a very new model. I have assessed how the design fits into a modern ethic about production and the environmental impact. 

1, Does it as a design depend on less Electrical Power Consumption than a comparative Separates System ?

2, Does it require a lot less real estate ? i.e, Less than the usual Packaging for Shipping when considering alternatives ? Less Support/Rack Equipment is needed when considering alternatives ?

3, Does it as design fit in more comfortably with a modern ethic on reducing the impact on the environment resulting from methodologies typically used for commercial ventures production ?

With the design coming from Scandinavia and knowing the Countries ethics on Conservation / Preservation, 2, looks like a ticked box. 1 and 3 are by myself requiring further investigation to be proven. 

4, Does it as a design produce a must have end sound ? There will be advocates who wear this products sonic attributes on their sleeves.  

 

   

interesting, @br3098 . users of both often state this in their preference for SUT. what headamp does such for hana ML?

"a really good head amp had an airiness and delicacy that SUTs can't match. You need to test."

Does anyone have a direct experience with Thöress ‘Phono Enhancer’. I was reading late last night about it and kinda digging its design and features. A purely active phono circuit – no step-up transformers – that uses three NOS (new-old-stock) tubes – one PCC88 and two 6J5GT.

@lalitk I'm running the Thoress, reason I purchased was the unique design and features. Don't have a great deal of experience with phono stages, but Thoress plays at a different level than my ModWright SWP9.0SE and prior custom build tube stage with step up trans.

 

I'm at point where I exclusively use only point to point wiring, short signal paths in all components, Thoress fits my preferences. I also believe performance could be raised further still with cap and resistor mods I'm contemplating. Thoress pretty much unknown in US, overlooked by many. In researching my purchase the Thoress competes against some much more expensive phono stages.